Dick Franks wrote:
On 14 April 2014 16:36, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:mfidelman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Dick Franks wrote:
On 13 April 2014 00:35, <ned+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:ned%2Bietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:ned+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:ned%2Bietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>> wrote:
[snip]
It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
An implementation based on I-D reference material is therefore
no better than "work in progress".
The blame for this debacle lies squarely with Yahoo, and its
inadequate engineering change management.
That's all in the fine print.
Indeed, but with blame so firmly attached, list operators need not be
too concerned about inconveniencing Yahoo customers by rejecting
posts. Those most affected will doubtless vote with their metaphorical
feet.
- allowing someone to represent something as an IETF standard
carries a risk to IETF's standing, effectiveness, and credibility
as the Internet's standards body (ISO tends to get very upset if
someone claims to be ISO9000 certified, but isn't; Xerox sends
lawyers after competitors who refer to their copiers as "xerox
machines")
Are you suggesting that IETF brings an action for trademark infringement?
Against whom?
A more pragmatic, less expensive, and publicly visible expression of
IETF displeasure might be to expunge all versions of the offending I-D
from IETF document store and refuse to publish any subsequent version
until the unwarranted claims made for it are retracted.
To be effective, that needs to be done now, while the iron is still
hot; not after the usual 3-month email debate about the diplomatic
niceties.
The later, accompanied with a strong statement about the limits of
DMARC, and the flaws in its deployment - might not be a bad start.
Miles
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra